(Prayer: Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to allow the present CRP by setting aside the Order, dated 17-09- 2025 and in lA. No. 505 of 2025 in OS No.283 of 2018 on the file of the Honourable III Additional District Judge Court at Guntur, Guntur District and pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to grant forthwith stay on all further proceedings in l.A. No. 505 of 2025 in OS No.283 of 2018 on the file of the Honourable III Additional District Judge Court at Guntur, pending disposal of the Civil Revision Petition and pass)

1. Heard Sri D. Ramaswamy Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A. Sai Rohit, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The respondent herein had filed O.S.No.283 of 2018, before the III Additional District Judge, Guntur for recovery of money, based on nine promissory notes. The petitioner herein resisted the suit, raising various grounds. One of the grounds raised by the petitioner was that the respondent did not have the wherewithal to advance a sum of Rs.1.3 crores to the petitioner.

3. The respondent examined himself as P.W.1. In the course of his cross examination, respondents/P.W.1 had deposed that the said amount was drawn from his firm M/s. Sri Sai Balaji Cotton Traders. Apart from this, the respondent had also marked his bank statement, as Ex.A.30, to show further source of money.

4. The petitioner, after the deposition of the respondent, as P.W.1, moved I.A.No.505 of 2025 to direct the respondent to produce either original or attested copies of income tax returns for the years 2014-2025 of the firm within which the respondent was one of the partners, that is M/s. Sai Balaji Cotton Traders, Guntur.

5. The application was resisted by the respondent on the ground that the respondent had filed the suit in his individual capacity and that the accounts of the firm cannot be sought, merely on the ground that he is one of the partners of the firm. He further contended that the income tax returns of the firm would not be relevant to demonstrate his capacity to lend the suit amount.

6. The trial Court, dismissed the application of the petitioner, by an order dated 17.09.2025, holding that the burden of demonstrating the capacity to lend a sum of Rs.1.3 crores would be on the respondent and that the petitioner cannot seek a direction to the respondent to file such income tax returns. The trial Court also held that non filing of the personal income tax returns of the respondent would result in adverse inference being drawn and as such, the petition lacks merits and requires to be dismissed.

7. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has approached this Court, by way of the present Civil Revision Petition.

8. The petitioner contends that there are various discrepancies in the submissions made by the respondent and all these discrepancies could have been demonstrated if the income tax returns of the firm could be produced. He would further submit that it is the case of the respondent that the main source of money, for the suit loan, was the firm, and as such, the returns of the firm would settle the issue as to whether the firm itself had the kind of money claimed by the respondent.

9. As held by the trial Court, the burden of demonstrating capacity to lend such money, is on the respondent, in the present case. In the absence of material being placed before the Court, it would be open to the Court to draw necessary inferences. Further, the firm would consist of various other partners and the income tax returns of the firm, cannot be sought, without the consent of such partners. It would be so, since the other partners are not parties to the suit.

10. For all the aforesaid reasons, this Court does not find any reasons to intervene with the order of trial Court, dated 17.09.2025, and the Civil Revision petition is accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

                  As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.